If National wins ...

[elZorro]

What does the Conservative Party say about globalisation

They want to stop asset sales, abolish the Maori seats, end the Waitangi settlements, not sign any foreign trade agreements unless they are on an even playing field. Sort of a conservative Nationalism, not neo-liberal like many in the National/Act coalition, that's for sure. But again, they don't really use the word globalisation.

[elZorro]

No, left wing journalists are getting desperate for a story - note the complete absence of anything like news in recent weeks apart from the few examples of mad driving and David Bains wedding. If you read on, a reasonable enquiry " will you be there" is made out to be a desperate plea. National can sit on their hand at the moment with all going well in the economy, according to international experts. Maybe when DC comes out of hibernation we might get some fun.

Craic, surely you can see that sending their fixer, their top PR/marketing person Steven Joyce, is a sign that National are taking the ACT coalition problem very seriously. Matthew Hooten has been on TV and in the press a fair bit, so he might be an alternative logical candidate for ACT. Hooten is definitely right-wing, I'd guess he's keen on the globalisation myth too.

Interesting comments from the left, on Hooten.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/11...new-bob-jones/

Peter Sherwin on R&D credits. Although I think there is a typo here. As far as I am aware, Labour's proposed rebate is on tax due at the end of the year, and it's for 12.5% of the amount spent on R&D, as a tax rebate. Since the business has already claimed say 28% of the costs back as normal procedures, the other 12.5% means that about 40% of the extra R&D costs are cashflow neutral. This is not a positive cashflow return as Mr Sherwin implies. A bit less painful, sure.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...R-D-incentives

[Major von Tempsky]

The Phoenicians were keen on the "globalisation myth". Traded all along the Mediterranean, Spain, Britain and part of Africa. Became really prosperous as a result.....

[elZorro]

The Phoenicians were keen on the "globalisation myth". Traded all along the Mediterranean, Spain, Britain and part of Africa. Became really prosperous as a result.....

Yes, so I see. It worked for about 1200 years in that part of the ancient world, but they were taken out by the Persians and then the Romans, goneburgers by 300BC.

But they were some of the first to build shipping fleets in the world. Nowadays we have the internet, air freight, a surplus of shipping capacity, and freight costs that exchange the use of manpower for fossil energy. How does NZ intend to get the jump on the rest of the world? What new systems have the National govt put in place to do that? In fact they are reducing our capacity to compete. They have thrown in the towel and decided to sell off some of the hard-won state assets instead.

All of their actions are applauded by very big business, this is what they lobbied for. Managers and shareholders can move in and clip the ticket on these state assets, no work involved. None of the tricky state assets are being sold, just all the tidiest and most profitable ones.

Editorial on tax avoidance today, seems in favour of Labour policy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=11185239

[elZorro]

Have a look at the American picture (and a bit from Japan/China) of employment. From Equedia.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact....QQl4oDpzH4g%3D

[Major von Tempsky]

That's a bit sweeping EZ - how about a passing nod to the efforts of the Nat Government in implementing UFB, in liberalizing labour laws to make Labour more competitive, in trade negotiations to lower barriers, in supporting the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates down, in stiffening education standards - lotsa examples.
If you read the latest Economist you will see they are mounting a big push to persuade Governments to sell off inefficient state monopolies and oligopolies and use the proceeds to pay down debt. I dare you to actually read it....I double dare you to actually read it....

[Cuzzie]

If the loony/greens get in I sure hope EZ & belboy have oil or gold shares, that will be karma.

[elZorro]

That's a bit sweeping EZ - how about a passing nod to the efforts of the Nat Government in implementing UFB, in liberalizing labour laws to make Labour more competitive, in trade negotiations to lower barriers, in supporting the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates down, in stiffening education standards - lotsa examples.
If you read the latest Economist you will see they are mounting a big push to persuade Governments to sell off inefficient state monopolies and oligopolies and use the proceeds to pay down debt. I dare you to actually read it....I double dare you to actually read it....

I have no doubt that if National is using taxpayer money to install UFB, they have an intention of selling it off to somebody, maybe at a firesale price. Liberalizing labour laws can go too far. If too many people have to take whatever part-time jobs they can get, and end up going to food banks as well, how is that good? Lowered barriers to trade - well sometimes a country needs to protect certain parts of the economy lest a fast change in the situation puts a lot of staff on the scrap heap. Malaysia reintroduced some tarrifs on local goods. Stiffening education standards here, if that is what you call it, has doubled and maybe tripled the workload of teachers, but there is no consensus that the standards are much use for the new working world anyway.

I certainly disagree with the idea that state-run companies like AirNZ and the electricity providers are poorly run. The electricity retailers might be stepping over themselves, but they are profitable, and that is why they are being sold off. A few years down the track from partial selloff we'll see a lack of new infrastructure and another govt will have to step in and fix it. Because the new owners won't be fronting up the capital, and they won't be looking after wider NZ.

MVT, remember that the govt receives in $60-$84billion of taxpayer funds and income a year, and while Labour was in, they added $26bill a year of tax from 1999 to 2008, simply by running the show properly. National has got back to that point after the GFC, with a lot of help from the agribusiness sector I'd think. To help make themselves look clever, National are selling off part of our best state assets to get in another one-off $5bill, but they'll lose the country ongoing income. It's not so bad paying higher power prices if the govt gets most of it for infrastructure. But now some of that money will be going offshore.

So that makes it doubly ignorant as a policy.

[slimwin]

Air nz isn't state run. They hold shares in it. Huge difference.

[elZorro]

Air nz isn't state run. They hold shares in it. Huge difference.

But the state provided the capital to get it running again, they are not passive investors. They stepped in when no-one else would. It worked.

I have been checking the STATs site to ensure I was right about govt income. It did peak in 2008, but overall income has just gone above that in 2013. The crown net worth also peaked in 2008, at $105billion. The net worth attributable to the crown is now just $68billion, in 2013. Under National, crown net worth has dropped by 35% in 5 years. Crown borrowing has increased a lot of course, Labour had paid off all the older core crown debt by 2008, that's come up since. And now there is new core debt. Check the spreadsheet pages in this link.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/governme...-yearend13.xls

Crown debt in 2008 was $10,239mill, just 5.5% of GDP. It has risen every year since, and is now $98,544mill by mid 2013, 46.4% of NZ's GDP. Even if you assume Labour had a good run and that may happen again for National, it'll take at least another five years to get the figures back into the same balance. National will need to hope that the interest cost doesn't go up. Or that Labour can fix it for them before National's next term in office.